mcarterbrown.com

mcarterbrown.com (http://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/)
-   Fitness (http://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/fitness/)
-   -   Two Large Meals is Better than Six Small Meals (http://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/fitness/236260-two-large-meals-better-than-six-small-meals.html)

Painthappy 06-24-2013 09:57 AM

Two Large Meals is Better than Six Small Meals
 
Two Large Meals a Day Tops Six Mini-Meals for Weight Loss - Bloomberg

News that was posted today.

Lohman446 06-24-2013 10:05 AM

The generalizability of that study is highly suspect considering it was done with a selected group (people with type II diabetes) and the criteria for that selection is likely to influence the results. As such unless you are similiar to the criteria used for selection (ie you have type II diabetes) the studies results may not be relevant to you.

I still think that people make too much of the when you eat. I know there are exceptions and those attempting to hit peak goals at a certain time (ie I want to run this race at 8:05) may be able to use nutritionally timing to their benefit. However for most the purposes of losing weight the key is to burn more calories than consumed - exact time of consumption is not likely to matter for most of us.

PBRevolution 06-24-2013 10:34 AM

On a similar note, eating regularly though out the day seems to speed up cancer growth, (in rats).

In one of the earliest studies, forty-eight rats were split up into two groups of twenty-four. One group ate ad libitum for a week, while the other group underwent alternate day fasting. After one week of the various dietary protocols, both groups were injected with breast cancer. At nine days post-injection, 16 of 24 fasted rats remained alive, while just five of 24 ad-libitum fed rats lived. At ten days post-injection, only three of the 24 ad libitum-fed rats survived; 12 of the 24 fasted rats remained alive.

Intermittent eating and chemo,

That was in 1988. It wasn’t until the late 90s that more promising research was undertaken. That’s when Longo began studying in earnest the phenomenon of increased cellular resistance to oxidative stress during fasting. Figuring that since chemotherapy exerts its effects on cancer by inducing oxidative stress (to all cells, not just cancerous ones), and fasting triggers survival mode in normal cells but not cancer cells, he conducted a study on mice to determine whether fasting protected the healthy, normal cells from chemotherapy’s side effects while leaving the cancer cells sensitive to the treatment. Tumor-ridden mice were either fasted or fed normally 48 hours prior to a large dose of chemotherapy. Half of the normally-fed mice died from chemotherapy toxicity, while all of the fasted mice survived (PDF). Furthermore, fasting did not improve the survival rate of cancerous cells, meaning it only protected normal, healthy cells.

Murf425 06-24-2013 10:36 AM

I've always held to the Forrest Gump approach; "When I got hungry, I ate." The trick is that you have to develop the ability to differentiate between hunger and boredom.

boo 06-24-2013 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBRevolution (Post 2741598)
On a similar note, eating regularly though out the day seems to speed up cancer growth, (in rats).

In one of the earliest studies, forty-eight rats were split up into two groups of twenty-four. One group ate ad libitum for a week, while the other group underwent alternate day fasting. After one week of the various dietary protocols, both groups were injected with breast cancer. At nine days post-injection, 16 of 24 fasted rats remained alive, while just five of 24 ad-libitum fed rats lived. At ten days post-injection, only three of the 24 ad libitum-fed rats survived; 12 of the 24 fasted rats remained alive.

Intermittent eating and chemo,

That was in 1988. It wasn’t until the late 90s that more promising research was undertaken. That’s when Longo began studying in earnest the phenomenon of increased cellular resistance to oxidative stress during fasting. Figuring that since chemotherapy exerts its effects on cancer by inducing oxidative stress (to all cells, not just cancerous ones), and fasting triggers survival mode in normal cells but not cancer cells, he conducted a study on mice to determine whether fasting protected the healthy, normal cells from chemotherapy’s side effects while leaving the cancer cells sensitive to the treatment. Tumor-ridden mice were either fasted or fed normally 48 hours prior to a large dose of chemotherapy. Half of the normally-fed mice died from chemotherapy toxicity, while all of the fasted mice survived (PDF). Furthermore, fasting did not improve the survival rate of cancerous cells, meaning it only protected normal, healthy cells.

Rats also eat their own ****, so the rats that were eating less were probably eating less **** (which probably contained the chemo chemicals). So we can conclude don't eat your **** and you will be more likely to survive cancer. Yea Science!

Without reading the top article, I can guess that this is only one study, which hardly is a study at all since the outcome has to be repeatable to be more "provable". One study on a small group vs. the hundreds of others across a wide population that says otherwise. I eat 2 meals a day but I know it's not healthy. It wreaks havoc with the blood sugar levels of a normal healthy person making them manic.

I really think our grandparents and their parents going many years back had it figured out, 3 square meals a day. No nonfat this, low calorie that. Get off your *** and work and you'll be healthy. If your not plowing fields or building stuff like your ancestors go run some laps at the gym.

If our bodies were conditioned and evolved (or devolved as some might argue) to a certain way of eating over 100's of years if you change it now your going to mess stuff up.

*Self_DeFenCe* 06-24-2013 10:52 AM

I'm scared of eating now, thanks guys!

PBRevolution 06-24-2013 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo (Post 2741611)
Rats also eat their own ****, so the rats that were eating less were probably eating less **** (which probably contained the chemo chemicals). So we can conclude don't eat your **** and you will be more likely to survive cancer. Yea Science!

Did you even read it? :rolleyes:

There was NO chemo involved in the first test.

Yea stupidity!

boo 06-24-2013 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PBRevolution (Post 2741621)
Did you even read it? :rolleyes:

There was NO chemo involved in the first test.

Yea stupidity!

My point was rats are good for a lot of stuff on a more cellular biological level such as drug testing and whatnot. This kind of stuff they are more closer to humans then when they eat, what they eat, and how they eat. That's my only point. I disagree that rats were a good subject for this test, unless they were selectively bread to eat like humans and then fed a statistically average human diet. Just like I disagree with one study (the two large meals a day) with a conclusion is valid science, beyond just an observation.

Lohman446 06-24-2013 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murf425 (Post 2741601)
I've always held to the Forrest Gump approach; "When I got hungry, I ate." The trick is that you have to develop the ability to differentiate between hunger and boredom.

Or thirst as well. I have been told by those who study such things that most Americans cannot differentiate between being hungry and being thirsty.

PBRevolution 06-24-2013 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo (Post 2741626)
My point was rats are good for a lot of stuff on a more cellular biological level such as drug testing and whatnot. This kind of stuff they are more closer to humans then when they eat, what they eat, and how they eat. That's my only point. I disagree that rats were a good subject for this test, unless they were selectively bread to eat like humans and then fed a statistically average human diet. Just like I disagree with one study (the two large meals a day) with a conclusion is valid science, beyond just an observation.

They've just recently began testing it on humans. I believe there has only been one published study so far, which deals with the effect of fasting in the reduction of chemo side effects.

"This is a 51-year-old Caucasian woman diagnosed with stage IIA breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemo-therapy consisting of docetaxel (TAX) and cyclophosphamide(CTX). She fasted prior to her first chemotherapy administration. The fasting regimen consisted of a complete caloric deprivation for 140 hours prior and 40 hours after chemotherapy (180 hours total), during which she consumed only water and vitamins. The patient completed this prolonged fasting without major inconvenience and lost 7 pounds, which were recovered by the end of the treatment (Figure ​(Figure2H).2H). After the fasting-chemotherapy cycle, the patient experienced mild fatigue, dry mouth and hiccups (Figure ​(Figure2I);2I); nevertheless she was able to carry out her daily activities (working up to 12 hours a day). By contrast, in the subsequent second and third treatment, she received chemotherapy accompanied by a regular diet and complained of moderate to severe fatigue, weakness, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea (Figure ​(Figure2I).2I). This time the side effects forced her to withdraw from her regular work schedule. For the forth cycle, she opted to fast again, although with a different regimen which consisted of fasting 120 hours prior to and 24 hours post chemotherapy. Notably, her self-reported side effects were lower despite the expected cumulative toxicity from previous cycles. Total white blood cell (WBC) and absolute neutrophil counts (ANC) were slightly better at nadir when chemotherapy was preceded by fasting (Figure ​(Figure2A,2A, C; Supplementary Table 1). Furthermore, platelets level decreased by 7-19% during cycles 2 and 3 (ad libitum diet) but did not drop during the first and forthcycles (fasting), (Figure ​(Figure2D).2D). After the forthchemotherapy cycle combined with 144-hour fast her ANC, WBC, and platelet counts reached their highest level since the start of chemotherapy 80 days earlier (Figure ​(Figure2A,2A, C and D)."

Fasting and cancer treatment in humans: A case series report

We can only speculate until more studies on humans are published, but without any other current evidence I'm inclined to believe the rat trials. They are not foolproof, but more likely then not they end up being correct.

Probability sides with the rats.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC